Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 69
Here we may well have only a case in which due adherence to appropriate
procedure has a temporary victory over substance. Carl O'Neil Hamrick, a
farmer under a Government program designed to assist those of his calling,
borrowed substantial sums of money ($171,000.00 and $25,810.00) on two
mortgages. The mortgagee in each case was the Farmers Home Administration.
The Farmers Home Administration on March 29, 1982 began proceedings to
foreclose following failure by Hamrick to abide by his undertaking to apply
proceeds from crop sales to the obligations under the mortgage notes and his
resulting conviction under 18 U.S.C. 658. The mortgages had gone in default,
the amounts due on August 26, 1982 amounting to $193,935.32 in the case of
the larger of the two mortgages, and to $55,419.70 in the case of the other. The
security in the form of farm land and equipment has not, according to counsel
The district judge affirmed the decision of the magistrate to whom the matter
had been referred.2 The judge and magistrate each refused any relief to
Hamrick on the grounds that (a) Hamrick had never met his responsibility to
apply for moratorium relief and (b) his claim was not meritorious, which we
take to mean that the prospects of relief were so remote that they might be
disregarded. We gather that the court assessed Hamrick's likelihood of success
in the light of violation of his undertakings when he sold crops without
applying the proceeds to obligations under the mortgages.
It may well be that the district judge will prove correct in his assessment of
Hamrick's chances if and when Hamrick applies for moratorium relief.
Nevertheless, the decision is one for the Secretary of Agriculture and not for
the court to make.3 Relief of farmers from adverse consequences of events
beyond their control is an important policy of the Government and we cannot
say with certainty that relief might not be forthcoming.
While I concur in the result, I do not concur in the per curiam opinion except
footnote 3 thereof, in which I do concur.
Were it not for the new regulations mentioned in note 3, I would deny all relief,
for Hamrick had sold about $40,000 worth of crops out from under mortgages
in favor of the government without consent and without applying the proceeds
to his loans. I thus think the foreclosure is postponed only by the new
regulations and otherwise he would not be entitled to any relief.
9
I think it is a mistake for the per curiam opinion to declare the policy of the
government, for matters of policy are properly determined first by the
legislature and only in the absence of any such determination by the courts.
Twin City Company v. Harding Glass Company, 283 U.S. 353, 51 S.Ct. 476,
75 L.Ed. 1112 (1931). Until the new regulations were promulgated by the
Secretary pursuant to Congressional authority, I do not think the plaintiff was in
the class of debtors Congress intended to permit to make application for relief.
There is authority to the effect that, despite the use of the discretionary "may,"
grant of the relief is mandated by the statutes. See Curry v. Block, 541 F.Supp.
506 (S.D.Ga.1982); cf. Pealo v. Farmers Home Administration, 361 F.Supp.
1320 (D.D.C.1973) (While the Farmers Home Administration retains discretion
in applying the act to a particular case, it may not generally suspend the
program). Here, even if the statute imposes a mandatory duty on the Secretary,
the Secretary may, nevertheless, deny deferral on a determination that the
borrower lacks "clean hands." Curry v. Block, supra, 541 F.Supp. at 517-18